Case 3323703/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Taiwo v Rcs Solutions (Cambridge) Ltd & Others — 2020
- Case reference
- 3323703/2019
- Decision date
- 6 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Taiwo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment entered because no response had been received to the claimant's claim. The tribunal recorded that the correct name of the respondent was RCS Solutions (Cambridge) Ltd. It also stated that the claim against Mr Honour was stayed, because a claim for unlawful deductions from wages can only be brought against the legal entity that employed the claimant.
The tribunal found that the claimant had suffered unlawful deductions from his wages in the sum of £1,380.00. No further reasoning, apportionment, or separate remedy breakdown was set out in the judgment, and the award was recorded as the amount of the unlawful deduction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment was entered under Rule 21 because no response had been received. The tribunal recorded that the correct name of the respondent was RCS Solutions (Cambridge) Ltd, and that the claim against Mr Honour was stayed because a claim for unlawful deductions from wages can only be brought against the legal entity that employed the claimant. | Upheld | — | £1,380 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,380
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.